Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Evolution of societies]]
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
*[[Great ape]]
*[[Greens]]
*[[Jane Goodall]]
*[[Nearctic]]
*[[Neotropic]]
*[[New tribalists]]
----
the user in question: you don't seem too "reluctant", you are reversing careful rewrites without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol.
This one I edited first time without knowing the rules:
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
You are apparently also not distinguishing the generic "Four Pillars" (which may be adopted by any group) from the original FPOTGP as defined by European Green Parties - redirecting one to the other as if they were the same thing.
:I didn't redirect it - look at the [[http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Four_Pillars&action=history history]]. It was 213.253.39.xxx who did most of the work removing your junk. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2002 Mar 22
If you want to keep playing a game, we'll keep playing a game. I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.
Most of the research comes from National Geographic, on the ape material, although it's hard to quote sources since most of it was TV specials with state of the art information.
: I am SURE that there is a good deal of scholarly research that has been published on Jane Goodall, Bonobos, and the like. My advice to 24.150.61.63 is this: if you would like to develop or contribute to an article in an encyclopedia (I mean, if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little ''research'' rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine? In general, I would not count on National Geographic specials to be 'state of the art." Anyway, how would you know -- unless you have done additional research. And if you have done additional research, please rely on it! SR
----
''24.150.61.63 deleted most of the above, and replaced it with the following:''
----
Zundark sez: Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):
*[[Jane Goodall]]
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Greens]]
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
Also sez: "24.150.61.63 inserting idiosyncratic non-NPOV ecology-related stuff all over the place"
and SR sez: "if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little ''research'' rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine? SR" and
"I wouldn't rely on National Geographic Specials to be state of the art"
The user in question sez: *EVEN IF THEY WERE MADE IN 2002*??!? Field researchers won't leave the field because they want to protect their subjects. Unlike you I guess, but fine, let's leave motivations *out*...
I am not a "vandal" and don't like that term. I'm getting used to the process here. I am not sure I like serious essays being labelled 'junk' by some golfer or geek.
The material in question is generally pretty carefully researched - more importantly, I understand it. It is you not me who are deleting far more than you have to - and applying a political bias. If that's for lack of time, fine, I appreciate that and can slow down.
Generally one can tell state of the art information by who quotes it. I doubt that some it is published at all - for instance anthropologists arguing about why some Great Apes are hominids by the classic definition, etc..
Why don't I wait for this to be published somewhere? Because they may all be dead first - you'll note I'm not bothering to type in things about Britney Spears or Chandra Levy that I saw on TV... have a sense of priorities, man: I may get some details wrong, but all told, if wiki readers help prevent an extinction of a misunderstood species... I'm not apologizing for the typos.
That said, there are much less important issues:
The Green Party material you are literally mangling by reversing corrections and explanatory extensions. The definition of a Green Party is controversial and the Global Greens Charter is certainly not a sufficient definition of it.
If you bothered to go to globalgreens.org you'd see objections to it, and if you lived through the debate between Greenpeace and Green Parties that seems to always get them confused, you'd realize why that needs a section to discuss "non-violence" versus "harms reduction" and can't be simplified.
Frankly, you don't seem too "reluctant", I'd guess you are reversing careful rewrites and whole articles without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol. [Perhaps they will reappear but if so wiki should say 'this is in rewrite']. I appreciate you guys are working without an editor, but really... there must be a better way to deal than calling people 'vandals'.
It's not like I don't have a theory of what I'm doing. Check the entries in the meta defining ethics and NPOV itself. You might see where I'm coming from and why I think certain things are important and others might not be. I want my facts straight, but I don't want to see typo-corrections reversed by a clique of self-appointed gurus. What you need here is a consensus process.
You also don't seem to realize that ecology is a science and defines facts and consensus theory.
That was a very intelligent comment about "Homonidae" which makes note of the difference between taxonomists and anthropologists (and also primatologists).
Other almost-meaningless details:
I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all. Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it must be somehow biased or wrong.
You have a body, you live in an ecology, and without both you'd be dead. So I kind of resent being told that it's "BIASED" to bring up body and ecology issues in an encyclopedia entry, or quote things (like the origin of female breasts) that are not controversial. Just how long have you dudes been here hacking?
-----
Zundark sez: [Neartic, Neotropic (really we should just delete this stuff before it gets totally out of hand)]
I repeat "ecology is a science and defines facts" including Nearctic and Neotropic as the ecoregional names of the North-Central and South American continents. You are trying to delete the entire science of ecology, Zundark.
That will not work.
:Actually, I didn't mean we shouldn't have articles on [[Nearctic]] and [[Neotropic]]. (They do, however, need to be properly written.) I just meant that we should delete all your stuff as the easiest way of dealing with it for now. It would be great if someone would come along and convert all your stuff into something encyclopedic, but I don't see this happening at the moment. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2002 Mar 22
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
